2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include the following: (a) the Defendant appears to have led to the confession of and reflect against the facts constituting the offense; (b) the victims returned the stolen vehicle to the victims; and (c) some victims do not want punishment.

However, the Defendant received juvenile protective disposition more than 10 times due to larceny, and, in particular, on September 5, 2014, the Changwon District Court sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment for a maximum of one year and six months, and on January 18, 2016, issued a short of one year and six months, and completed the execution of the sentence, the Defendant’s sentence is inevitable since the Defendant committed each of the of the of the instant crimes only seven months, and the Defendant committed the same type of repeated crime. The amount of damage from each of the instant crimes was not limited to two vehicles, but was stolen, and the Defendant was punished as habitual larceny, and the Defendant was punished as habitual larceny, so it is possible for the Defendant to receive more severe punishment if he was indicted for habitual larceny at that time, and even if the Defendant was indicted as habitual larceny, the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual intercourse, motive for committing the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime cannot be considered in light of the circumstances that were submitted to the lower court for sentencing, even if there were excessive circumstances in the victim’s oral sentencing.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.